Save Periodization Plan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary side effect (creating a cycle), the optional linking of templates, and a known limitation: the training phase is not set by this tool and must be edited from the app. This goes beyond a bare 'saves a plan' statement. It does not mention return value or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the limitation note is appended as a concise, clearly marked caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple 5-parameter schema with full descriptions and the absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for invoking the tool correctly. It covers purpose, optional behavior, and a significant limitation. It would benefit from a brief note on what happens after creation or what the tool returns, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases some schema details (e.g., named block, start/end date, linking existing templates) but does not add materially new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each of the five parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Creates'), a concrete resource ('a periodization cycle'), and clarifies what that resource is ('a named training block... with a start/end date'). It also distinguishes this from related save tools by explaining that it optionally links existing workout templates, so an agent can tell it apart from save_workout_template.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: to create a periodization cycle and optionally attach existing templates. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools such as save_workout_template for creating templates from scratch. The context is clear enough for basic selection, but exclusions are left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.